Senior Designation | 'Interview Was Only For Few Minutes' : Indira Jaising Requests Supreme Court To Hold Fresh Interviews For Excluded Advocates

In the letter, Jaising, in whose petition the Supreme Court had issued guidelines to ensure objectivity in the process of senior designation, state that some of the advocates feel that they were unfairly left out of being designated.

“The large number of persons designated does promote access to justice and I have no doubt has also generated a healthy atmosphere at the Bar. At the same time, there is a feeling among some of the Advocates who were called for the interview that they have been unjustifiably left out of being designated.”

To elaborate and support this, the letter has also cited that advocates with 25 years of practice and more than 50 reported cases as leading counsel have not been designated

“It has been observed that those who had more than 25 years of practice and had more than 50 reported cases as leading counsel have not been designated. This is perhaps for the reason that 25 marks are allotted to the interview and yet the interview itself was collective and for a few minutes only.”

While the letter does not make any observation with regard to any individual case, it also averred one opportunity for qualified advocates who were called for the interview but designation. For doing so, Jaising has suggested that the designating authority can review this decision, and an opportunity for a fresh interview can be granted. Here is what the letter stated:

“I do not wish to say anything about the individual cases but as a matter of principle, I think to avoid a sense of discontent at the bar and to instil confidence in the process it is in the fitness of things that the system provides one opportunity to those called for the interview and not designed to have the decision reviewed by the designating authority.”

“Hence, I request you to consider reviewing the decision not to designate by granting a fresh opportunity for an interview to those advocates who were otherwise qualified and called for the interview on such criteria as you may deem fit, but were not designated.”

Imperatively, before parting, the senior counsel made one last pertinent suggestion. As per this, the marks obtained by individual candidates can be disclosed to maintain transparency. It may be noted that some of the High Courts are already practising this practice.

“You may also consider disclosing the marks obtained by individual candidates as is done in some High Courts to make the system transparent.”

In her tweet this morning, Jaising shared the letter, stating: “Sad but true, there is still a lot of discontent with the system of designation of senior lawyers. If not addresses, the system may have to end. I do hope the Chief Justice of India looks into this.”

On January 19, the Supreme Court conferred senior designations on 56 advocates. It was after a gap of five years that senior designations took place in the Supreme Court. Further, this is also the first time that senior designations have been decided based on the modified guidelines framed as per the judgment passed by the Supreme Court last year in its 2017 judgment (Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India).